So it looks like the latest in the driver ad debacle of Good Good and Callaway is the club maker dropping Good Good:
https://instagr.am/p/DcjVADgAUW4
https://instagr.am/p/DcjVADgAUW4
Callaway drops Good Good
9,357 Views |
106 Replies |
Last: 17 days ago by hph6203
Little backstory would be nice
SOFt.
Khaos summarized it good in a single statement. The whole situation has been happening over the past few days so I incorrectly assumed that a number of posters in this forum were already familiar with what originally happened.
- Good Good releases an ad that was apparantly inspired/influenced by some movie called Obsession. In the ad a woman golfer makes a motion to reach for the driver in the guys golf bag. The guy shoves her to the ground and says something like 'don't touch my driver'.
- Following the release, social media has a number of adverse reactions from golf influencers (women and some men as well), commentators, etc, which result in the ad being pulled. A number of them threaten to boycott Callaway because they greenlit the ad.
- Fallout from the situation results in the Big Break show with Good Good being postponed, the PGA Tour CEO being questioned about it during a press conference, DICKS starting to pull Good Good merch, etc.
- Now the latest is Callaway is cutting ties with Good Good
As usual with these manufactured controversies, it's an over-reaction and performative.
Releasing that video in today's cancel culture shows poor judgment but that's about it. It's not an indictment on these guys' character or anything like that.
Releasing that video in today's cancel culture shows poor judgment but that's about it. It's not an indictment on these guys' character or anything like that.
Callaway should fire themselves for approving the ad, not fire good good.
It's like a kid asking a parent for a piece of cake and the parent approves. Said kid gets sick and then the parent spanks the kid for eating the cake. dumb all the way around
It's like a kid asking a parent for a piece of cake and the parent approves. Said kid gets sick and then the parent spanks the kid for eating the cake. dumb all the way around
Likely the Golf Channel and the PGA Tour will drop Good Good going forward.
i hope not because as much as I cant stand the good good guys I was actually looking forward to Big Break coming back to tv.
At some point as a society, we're going to look back at stuff like this and have interesting thoughts.
It was a bad attempt at a clever commercial.
It almost feels like society is just constantly looking to blast any entity they can. It appears they went out of their way to feature a female as part of the commercial and now it's an attack on women. If they didn't feature one of the ladies, it would have been an attack on them for not doing so even though the brand historically has been mostly guys. The downfall was probably the lead guys ego requiring him to be the main character instead of playing the lady's part.
So let's flip it. Would anyone that is outraged by this be screaming if it was reversed and the girl had tackled the guy? Probably not. And that to me is what doesn't sit right with me about this. It would have still been a bad attempt at a clever commercial, but the outrage wouldn't be happening as an attack on women.
So, if the people screaming also demand equal rights and support a feminism movement, wouldn't that make this drama a bit hypocritical? And that's the conversation my wife and I had with our daughters over this. You can't demand fair and equal and then demand special treatment when convenient. If you look to play the victim, you will be. Life isn't fair, so stop expecting it to be and do your best to overcome everyday adversity and persevere.
I'm not a huge fan of Good-Good outside of Brad and Walsh, so I'm selfishly hopeful this is the final nail that splits them off for good.
You're doing some real mental gymnastics to twist that commercial into believing the Good Good advocates domestic violence.
I know very little about Good Good or even the "Obsession" reference...I saw the commercial just earlier today and just thought it was a poor "Terry Tate, Office Linebacker" spoof.
I know very little about Good Good or even the "Obsession" reference...I saw the commercial just earlier today and just thought it was a poor "Terry Tate, Office Linebacker" spoof.
It was a punchline (pardon the pun) that didn't land. People need to settle down
When the reactions first started coming in, I thought of your point about role reversal. My thought was that if the roles were reversed, most people would've just dismissed the ad as dumb and moved on with their lives.
That ad was pretty bad but seems like an over reaction.
between Callaway investing in Top Golf and Good Good I'm not surprised they allowed the commercial to air to begin with. A bunch of idiots in that company.
Or 2d chess and they knew the outrage would come so they decided to air it to give them an out to cut them out and stop losing money investing in good good.
Or 2d chess and they knew the outrage would come so they decided to air it to give them an out to cut them out and stop losing money investing in good good.
GoAgs92 said:
That ad was pretty bad but seems like an over reaction.
not in any way blaming the girl, but you would think she would have said..."this is a terrible idea"
I don't like Good Good but can't even believe we even got to this point. What a massive overreaction.
Terrible ad, yes. Should they be cancelled, no. Just proves how stupid a lot of creative folks are.
Terrible ad, yes. Should they be cancelled, no. Just proves how stupid a lot of creative folks are.
Aggie95 said:GoAgs92 said:
That ad was pretty bad but seems like an over reaction.
not in any way blaming the girl, but you would think she would have said..."this is a terrible idea"
It's almost like any sane person (including a woman) doesn't think an ad making a joke condones violence towards women. Don't you think her being part of it points to it not offending her? And thus, shouldn't offend others?
Changing of the times.....
Snickers and Betty White commercial, I dont recall outrage
Reebox and Terry Tate commercials, I dont recall outrage
I think Michelob had one too, backyard football pickup, dude laid out a female and stood over her....outrage??
Snickers and Betty White commercial, I dont recall outrage
Reebox and Terry Tate commercials, I dont recall outrage
I think Michelob had one too, backyard football pickup, dude laid out a female and stood over her....outrage??
"Anything less than your best is a felony"
Aggies1322 said:Aggie95 said:GoAgs92 said:
That ad was pretty bad but seems like an over reaction.
not in any way blaming the girl, but you would think she would have said..."this is a terrible idea"
It's almost like any sane person (including a woman) doesn't think an ad making a joke condones violence towards women. Don't you think her being part of it points to it not offending her? And thus, shouldn't offend others?
Sure and then they'll say that because she works for him, she felt the need to go along with it.
Peter Piper said:Aggies1322 said:Aggie95 said:GoAgs92 said:
That ad was pretty bad but seems like an over reaction.
not in any way blaming the girl, but you would think she would have said..."this is a terrible idea"
It's almost like any sane person (including a woman) doesn't think an ad making a joke condones violence towards women. Don't you think her being part of it points to it not offending her? And thus, shouldn't offend others?
Sure and then they'll say that because she works for him, she felt the need to go along with it.
My organization supports LGBTQ/pride things consistently.. I'm a Christian, so it would go against my beliefs to do so. So, I just choose not to participate in those activities. I don't know why "obligation to employer" would push someone to violate their conscience.
PGA Tour just dropped them, too.
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/49745949/good-good-golf-pga-tour-event-title-sponsor-amid-ad-backlash
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/49745949/good-good-golf-pga-tour-event-title-sponsor-amid-ad-backlash
AustinCountyAg said:
Callaway should fire themselves for approving the ad, not fire good good.
It's like a kid asking a parent for a piece of cake and the parent approves. Said kid gets sick and then the parent spanks the kid for eating the cake. dumb all the way around
This is the most ridiculous part. I imagine a ton of Callaway marketing employees and execs watched that ad and raised no concerns, but it's all their partner's fault.
This was actually funny.
Good Good’s new customers after all their apparel are getting banned from stores.
— Tour Golf (not PGA Tour) (@PGATUOR) August 26, 2026
(Via @FairwayFelon) pic.twitter.com/tLe5Li2VIq
.
That's Racist and highly insulting to the less fortunate!!
Think of the carbon footprint to pick up all the perfectly fine goods and ship them to Africa and other third world countries!!!
Am I doing this right?
Think of the carbon footprint to pick up all the perfectly fine goods and ship them to Africa and other third world countries!!!
Am I doing this right?
hph6203 said:
This was actually funny.Good Good’s new customers after all their apparel are getting banned from stores.
— Tour Golf (not PGA Tour) (@PGATUOR) August 26, 2026
(Via @FairwayFelon) pic.twitter.com/tLe5Li2VIq
See, I don't care that their apparel got sent to Africa; only golf bros would ever wear that stuff. But it's frustrating to know that Golf Galaxy likely overnighted all of their GG Callaway Quantum drivers without even offering them to Joe Public at their cost.
Time to cancel Snickers. Shoving women to the ground is never okay.
So we call all agree society is too soft? Most would say way too soft! So here we have the inability to read the room, or the inability to use good judgement!
Either way, no one either team demonstrated "Good" judgement!
Either way, no one either team demonstrated "Good" judgement!
First Callaway, then the PGA Tour, now Golf Channel. It was a trifecta of announcements Thursday that kept Good Good in the news. The Youtube influencers released a video earlier this week promoting a new Callaway driver that showed a man pushing a woman to the ground. There was immediate backlash. Multiple apologies followed from both Good Good and Callaway but on Thursday Callaway announced it was ending its partnership with the brand. Several hours later Good Good announced it would "step away" from hosting a fall PGA Tour event in Texas. Finally, Golf Channel said it will not air its "Big Break x Good Good" series at all. The premier of the reboot of the series was postponed on Tuesday, but now none of it will air.
Wasn't the ad a spoof on a horror movie that is currently popular?
While not the best conceived ad ever, that seems relevant to why the ad was what it was. The backlash seems completely over the top.
While not the best conceived ad ever, that seems relevant to why the ad was what it was. The backlash seems completely over the top.
I'm honestly truly confused by what your point is. You are making it clear that you are not a crazy twitter type that thinks they should hang or that they are truly advocating violence against women (I'm not on twitter but would agree you are not a crazy type). But you are also arguing they should be dropped by all sponsors (which in effect is a hanging for their brand).
So what exactly is your point? They should lose all sponsors even though they didn't intend anything bad by it? And how is that different than the crazy crowd? What could be worse for a company than losing all sponsors?
Not trying to argue. Genuinely asking.
It was a very poorly shot commercial. I think the camera angle and the poor quality and poor acting made it worse than it should have been. It was really just a poorly executed joke. Clearly they are not advocating violence and they apparently are spoofing the Obsession movie (which I have not seen but heard is great).
These types of jokes have been done before in a funny way. So let's not act like over the top shoving or hitting of women cannot be funny when it's clearly a joke. This was clearly a joke but was not funny bc of the poor acting and camera angle and poor directing. SNL or some comedy Skitch show could certainly take this premise and make it hilarious.
Should they apologize? I guess, maybe. But sponsors dropping them like flies is insane for this.
I honestly would not have apologized if I was them. Or at least not in the way they are. They should have said sorry it was a poorly executed joke and make a charity contribution. If they did that, I think they would likely get larger than they were before, similar to the Morgan wallen thing where most people realized it was ridiculous for people to try and cancel him (and no I'm not a big wallen fan, I only listen to Texas country, but I think there are some parallels to this).
Just my two cents. Hadn't seen the video until 30 mins ago and was expecting much worse.
So what exactly is your point? They should lose all sponsors even though they didn't intend anything bad by it? And how is that different than the crazy crowd? What could be worse for a company than losing all sponsors?
Not trying to argue. Genuinely asking.
It was a very poorly shot commercial. I think the camera angle and the poor quality and poor acting made it worse than it should have been. It was really just a poorly executed joke. Clearly they are not advocating violence and they apparently are spoofing the Obsession movie (which I have not seen but heard is great).
These types of jokes have been done before in a funny way. So let's not act like over the top shoving or hitting of women cannot be funny when it's clearly a joke. This was clearly a joke but was not funny bc of the poor acting and camera angle and poor directing. SNL or some comedy Skitch show could certainly take this premise and make it hilarious.
Should they apologize? I guess, maybe. But sponsors dropping them like flies is insane for this.
I honestly would not have apologized if I was them. Or at least not in the way they are. They should have said sorry it was a poorly executed joke and make a charity contribution. If they did that, I think they would likely get larger than they were before, similar to the Morgan wallen thing where most people realized it was ridiculous for people to try and cancel him (and no I'm not a big wallen fan, I only listen to Texas country, but I think there are some parallels to this).
Just my two cents. Hadn't seen the video until 30 mins ago and was expecting much worse.
Callaway is really hanging these guys out to dry. They've admitted it was bad and apologized but the internet wants its pound of flesh.
Here's a MyGolfSpy story that shows the commercial. I can see the Good Good guys having no problem with it.
Good Good And Callaway Humiliated Themselves With Bizarre Ad | MyGolfSpy https://share.google/mDDW9YUWztzgfSokY
Good Good And Callaway Humiliated Themselves With Bizarre Ad | MyGolfSpy https://share.google/mDDW9YUWztzgfSokY
Because you don't actually have a mental model of what happened, what justifies it, and whether or not it should have. You see upset people and think "Well, obviously they should apologize. Obviously they should lose their sponsorships. People are upset!" And when people criticize the circumstances because there's no rational reason to be upset you think it's a lack of understanding rather than the result of a deeper understanding.
Why is the video bad? Explain it. They pretended to push a woman? What is bad about that? "Well, obviously it's bad to push a woman." But they didn't push a woman. They pretended to. So why is it bad? People are upset about it? Why?
No one actually believes they advocate for harming women.
No one actually believes a woman was harmed in the making of the video.
No one actually believes the rate of abuse against women will increase because of it, and even if they did they removed the video to remove that possibility and yet the people claiming offense ensure that the video continues to get distributed by reposting it. If this was the actual reason they wouldn't repost it and the removal of it would be sufficient to end the upset.
It's because people aren't actually upset. They are faking it for other purposes. They are anti-social cry bullies. An anti-social cry bully is a person that enjoys bullying people. They get off on it. They are not the normal type of bully that is direct about it, because people like you wouldn't defend them. The cry bully pretends to be injured or protective of a theoretical (but non-existent) individual injured by the target of their bullying and then they unleash their anger upon them. It is fake upset for the purposes of being mean that gets people like you to defend the outcome, because people are upset and we have to consider their feelings. That is what this circumstance is.
Why is the video bad? Explain it. They pretended to push a woman? What is bad about that? "Well, obviously it's bad to push a woman." But they didn't push a woman. They pretended to. So why is it bad? People are upset about it? Why?
No one actually believes they advocate for harming women.
No one actually believes a woman was harmed in the making of the video.
No one actually believes the rate of abuse against women will increase because of it, and even if they did they removed the video to remove that possibility and yet the people claiming offense ensure that the video continues to get distributed by reposting it. If this was the actual reason they wouldn't repost it and the removal of it would be sufficient to end the upset.
It's because people aren't actually upset. They are faking it for other purposes. They are anti-social cry bullies. An anti-social cry bully is a person that enjoys bullying people. They get off on it. They are not the normal type of bully that is direct about it, because people like you wouldn't defend them. The cry bully pretends to be injured or protective of a theoretical (but non-existent) individual injured by the target of their bullying and then they unleash their anger upon them. It is fake upset for the purposes of being mean that gets people like you to defend the outcome, because people are upset and we have to consider their feelings. That is what this circumstance is.
.
For the people that think this was worth losing sponsors, what is your understanding of the commercial? Are you aware it was based on a horror movie where someone is possessed by an item? Are you saying just creating dark ads is worthy of losing everything? I'm genuinely confused.
A couple years ago, Bryan Cranston was in a Mountain Dew commercial based on the shining. He recreates the famous scene of Jack axing the door to the bathroom while his wife screams inside. Do you think that commercial somehow advocated spousal ax murder and everyone involved should be totally ashamed of themselves?
A couple years ago, Bryan Cranston was in a Mountain Dew commercial based on the shining. He recreates the famous scene of Jack axing the door to the bathroom while his wife screams inside. Do you think that commercial somehow advocated spousal ax murder and everyone involved should be totally ashamed of themselves?
I can see GG suing Callaway due to the fallout. Especially if they helped with or approved the ad. At least some sort of settlement to make it go away.
Featured Stories
See All
11:56
21h ago
7.3k
10 SEC quarterback stats to know entering Week 3
by Connor O'Gara
4:01
2h ago
1.0k
Nuño's Notes: Big things to know about Big Blue Nation
by David Nuño
Players to Watch: No. 9 Texas A&M vs. Kentucky
by Olin Buchanan